"And it should keep in mind that for any carbon reduction program to
succeed, other countries must participate."True, but if the
United States does not lead, the chance that other countries will participate is
“It was done without full public discussion and debate”I
was under the impression that the debate has been vigorous and protracted, with
the Administration finally deciding to go with the science (that carbon
emissions are damaging to the health of the planet and the creatures living on
it). And why do Republicans continuously under-estimate the benefits
of a competitive automobile market and the ingenuity of our engineers and
business people to keep the associated prices (of raising fuel standards)
down.Industry has always responded accordingly… where is your
Someone needs to tell Perry that the Detroit automakers are not only embracing
the mileage standards, they are proceeding ahead of the established deadlines.
This is a case where partisanship is actually quite mindless. This right wing
think-tank piece is not about the needs of business. It's about fomenting
discord on deceitful grounds. And the writer then rationalizes not having
better mileage standards by saying the U.S. isn't the worst offender. Are
you kidding me? The automakers are embracing innovation (Ford, for example, is
researching solar panels on vehicles - pretty cool), but the right wing is
fighting innovation. It actually is a good example of how the right and the GOP
are actually against innovation and moving forward with technology and economic
"...it forces automakers to make huge capital investments that cost billions
of dollars and requires the retooling of factories."So let me
get this straight. The federal government is forcing companies to innovate and
become more efficient. If the law doesn't exist, then the companies
don't innovate and then are exposed the whims of the marketplace and
escalating gas prices.Didn't we just experience in the
mid-2000s when gasoline hit $3 and $4 a gallon and Americans weren't buying
American cars because Detroit resisted CAFE standards and couldn't compete
with European and Japanese fuel efficient cars? Didn't we see the rise of
the Toyota Prius as "the car of choice" for institutions and governments
to reduce fuel costs, but people squawked because they weren't American
cars -- and it had to be pointed out that American car companies weren't
producing fuel efficient needed by fleets? So many American cities and
institutions bought Toyotas over Detroit's cars... didn't we have to
bail out GM and Chrysler because they weren't producing fuel-efficient cars
that Americans wanted?
The time is coming ... indeed, the time may have already passed ... that
"prosperity" and "consumer choice" are no longer environmentally
Cheap, oversized, void of innovation, flashy and impractical. Republicans, or
the cars they want to see built?
‘EPA rule hobbles economy, hurts consumer choice’Yep, in
the short term - it just might.But I doubt it.Just like making
all gasoline and paint Lead-free did 30 years ago, I don't hear
ANYONE crying about that now...
Somehow I just don't believe that the air quality in Utah is in any way the
product of the lack of proper government in foreign nations. This article
reminds me of the childhood plea for permission based on the argument that
Jack's mother lets him do it.
THis piece just proves anyone.... and I mean anyone.... common sense or not...
can be a professor. Unlike the authors conjecture, change drives economic
growth, not the rigid maintenance of the status quo. Every phase of change in
our history has driven economic expanse. If the dear professor doesn't get
that.... I am not sure what he knows.
Today we drive the efficient cars that a few decades ago many thought impossible
or at least impractical to build. They howled that the cars would be unsafe and
We are using less oil today than we did 20 years ago. Who would have thought
that possible.Why is our demand dropping? In large part because of
EPA mileage standards.Just think of all the money that is NOT
leaving the US because of this increase in fuel efficiency.It is
shortsighted to not keep pushing the Auto industry to make improvements.
From the article -- "How much more expensive? Some estimates say
between $1,800 and $3,000 per vehicle to comply with the EPA rules"======== So, If a car travels 150,000 miles, and gets 25
mpg, that would burn 6,000 gallons of gas, at $3.50 per gallon = $21,000If a car travels 150,000 miles, and gets 50 mpg, that would consume only
3,000 gallons, at $3.5 per gallon = $10,500The SAVINGS would be
$10,500 - the additional cost of vehicle of $3000 = net difference of $7,500
saved.NOT - taking into account gasoline prices dropping due to the
decrease in demand -- higher supply, lesser demand on the global market.Professor Perry of Business and Economics either gets an F- in
economics, or comes out of the closet as paid for Big Oil lobbyist.Class dismissed.
Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very
heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect. Yes, there
is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much
lighter than CO2. So much for the EPA's political motivated effort to save
the world from "evil" C02! And by the way, we learned in the 4th grade
that all plants need C02 for photosynthesis which produces food for all life
@Mountanman – “Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular
weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the
greenhouse effect.”Wow, really?!!I had no
idea… this changes everything! I need to rethink everything I thought I
knew starting from 7th grade on.But first things first – we
need to inform the 97%+ climate scientists of this fact. Obviously they are
working under a mass delusion (probably all attended the same substandard middle
school). I expect once this new piece of information gets out there,
the climate change debate will be entirely different.You have done a
tremendous service today… thank you!
MountanmanHayden, IDSeventh grade physics shows that CO2's
molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause
the greenhouse effect. And by the way, we learned in the 4th grade
that all plants need C02 for photosynthesis which produces food for all life
forms!11:00 a.m. March 3, 2014======== I
guess you forgot [or never learned] that Venus [our sister planet] has a surface
temperature of 400+ degrees, and it's atmospwhere is comprised of CO2, and
there is no photosynthesis because there is NO life!
Tyler. No need to thank me in spite of your sarcasm. Just using science to show
that man made climate change really is a hoax no matter how many politicians use
junk science to make their case for carbon taxes. If you can prove otherwise,
let us all know, please! Looked out side lately? Record cold temps in much of
the Northern Hemisphere!
LDS Tree-hugger. I learned in the 2nd grade that in our solar system closest to
the sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Earth. That's probably why it is
hotter on Venus! Not because of C02!
Mountaiman,Fine dust is much heavier than air (CO2 is only slightly
heavier) yet dust moves around the world in the air.Air currents and
gases mixing.If the air was always stagnant then it would all fall
out eventually I suppose.
What’s more likely?That a global conspiracy among virtually
all the world’s climate scientists has been going on for decades in an
effort to… what… pass a carbon tax? Keep in mind scientists by
nature are extremely analytical and spend good portions of their careers
attacking the theories of fellow scientists – this is important as it
suggests any scientist worldwide could win a Nobel Prize by debunking climate
change (which according to what you learned in 7th grade, should be easy).Or…The petro-chemical industry has essential bought
themselves a media outlet (check out some of the largest stock holders of Fox
sometime) and through a combination of greedy media pundits, lots of rhetoric
about freedom, fear of government, anti-elitist sentiments, and the most bizarre
mix of religion & politics we may ever see in our lifetime; has convinced a
large segment of our population that climate change is all a hoax?And it’s interesting that the industry once acknowledged man-made
climate change (many still do… quietly) and focused their efforts on
addressing it in market friendly ways, until the above strategy began to show
"climate change really is a hoax no matter how many politicians use junk
science to make their case for carbon taxes."Ah Yes, the ole
Carbon Tax. Another Republican idea being blamed on the Democrats.Google Emissions Trading. Which is the precursor to Carbon Tax. It was
brought forth by the Republicans as a way to let market forces help to curb
MountanmanHayden, IDLDS Tree-hugger. I learned in the 2nd grade that
in our solar system closest to the sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Earth.
That's probably why it is hotter on Venus! Not because of C02!11:48 a.m. March 3, 2014========= Mercury is closer to
the Sun, but Venus is still much HOTTER than Mercury -- because of the
CO2.also, the clouds of Venus reflect 70% of all light hitting the
planet, without that CO2 and the greenhouse efffect it causes, Venus
would actually be -42 degrees C instead of +460 degrees C.
This is devolving into a Kripke/Sheldon Cooper like debate. Where is Howard
Wolowitz when you need him?
to MountanmanHow do you explain the part of Mercury that is close to
Venus but as cold as Pluto?